JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the Union of India through Station Commander, Military Station Headquarters, Ekling Garh Chhawani, Udaipur with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.02.2014 (Annexure-13) passed by respondent No. 8 - Director, Department of Local Self Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 194(12) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2009') has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the permissions dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure-5) and 28.01.2013 (Annexure-6) issued by Municipal Council, Udaipur now the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur-respondent No.9 for raising a high-rise building (hereinafter to be referred as 'Shikarbadi Residency) to the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6 respectively (hereinafter to be referred as 'the builders'). 2. In the appeal before the Director, Local Bodies too, the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid permissions. 3. Necessary facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of this writ petition, as summarised by this Court, are that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 being the lawful owners of the plot Nos.79, 80, 89 and 90 situated at Block 'B', Goverdhan Vilas, Shikarbadi Road, Udaipur sought permission for constructing Shikarbadi Residency before the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur vide application dated 28.03.2011, however, the requisite charges such as application fees, inspection fees, water harvesting charges, and security etc. were deposited on 04.05.2011 and the Municipal Corporation started processing the said application on 10.05.2011. 4. were deposited on 04.05.2011 and the Municipal Corporation started processing the said application on 10.05.2011. 4. In its meeting dated 07.07.2011, the Building Committee of the Municipal Corporation passed the following resolution: ¼42½ HkŒvŒ@23@11&12 Jhefr izhfr tks'kh] Lusgyrk tks'kh] js.kq tks'kh IykV uaŒ 79]80]89]90 ch Cykd f'kdkjokM+h] xkso/kZu foykl] mn;iqj vkt fnuakd 07-07-2011 dks Hkou vuqefr lfefr dh cSBd j[kh xbZ o lfefr }kjk ekSdk ns[kk ekSds ij Hkw[k.M+ fjDr gSA mDr Hkw[kaM+ dk la;qDrhdj.k jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k fnukad 19-02-2010 }kjk fd;k tk pqdk gSA izkFkhZ mDr Hkw[kaM+ ij ftldk uke 110^&0* xq.kk 200^&0*& 2 vkj&15^&0* ¾ 21904^&0* oxZ QhV ftl ij la;qDrhdj.k ds rgr fn;s x;s lsV csDl lkeus ls 40^&0* o cdk;k rhuksa rjQ ls 20^&0*&20^&0* lsV csDl NksM+rs gq, LVhYV yksj ikfdZx o Hkwry ikap efty vkoklh; ysV~l dk fuekZ.k djuk izLrkfor fd;k x;k gSA ifj"kn~ vf/koDrk }kjk mDr LFky ij izkFkhZ x.kksa dk LokfeRo iw.kZ gksus dh jk; nh xbZ gSA ftl ij layXu izLrkfor uD'ksa ij rduhdh tkap fd;s tkus ij ,Q , vkj 1-98 izkIr gksrh gSA Hkou fofu;e 2010 vuqlkj ekud ,Q , vkj 1-2 o vf/kdre ,Q , vkj 2-0 rd vuqKs; gSA ikfdZx dh miyC/krk 74-11 bZ lh ;w rFkk vko';drk 67-5 bZ lh ;w gSA tks fd vko';drk ds vuq:i gSA vfXujks/kh lh<+h dk izko/kku fd;k tkuk gSaA Hkw[kaM+ ds lkeus eq[; lM+d 80^&0* pkSM+h gSA ftlls Hkou dh ÅapkbZ izLrkfor uD'ksa vuqlkj vuqKs; gSA vr% loZ lEefr ls fu.kZ; fy;h x;k fd izkFkhZ dk Hkou fofu;e 2010 ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr lsV csd NqM+okrs gq, LvhYM+ yksj ikfdZx] Hkwry+ ikap eafty vkoklh; ysV~l dh Lohd`fr nh tkrh gSA ftlesa ikfdZx LFky dks uxj ifj"kn~ mn;iqj ds gd esa lefiZr djuk gksxkA fu;ekuqlkj vfXujks/kh lh<+h dk fuekZ.k djuk gksxkA vfXu'keu ,oa Hkwdai jks/kh izko/kku us'kuy fcfYM+ax dksM+ ds izko/kkukuqlkj j[kus gksaxsA fu;ekuqlkj lkSj ÅtkZ ls ikuh dks xje djuk LVªDpjy bathfu;j ls LVªDpj fM+tkbZu djok;k tkus dk lfVZfQdsV ifj"kn~ esa izLrqr djuk vkfn izko/kku j[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks mDr LFky ij izFke pj.k esa LvhYM+ yksj ikfdZx Hkwry nks eafty rd Hkou fuekZ.k vuqefr tkjh dh tkosA ftldk ekSds ij lgh fuekZ.k ik;s tkus ij vfxze f}rh; pj.k esa cdk;k Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iz'kklfud lfefr ls vuqeksnu ds mijkar tkjh dh tkosA 5. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur invited objections from the public at large vide notice dated 22.07.2011 published in the daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika on 23.07.2011. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur invited objections from the public at large vide notice dated 22.07.2011 published in the daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika on 23.07.2011. In the said notice, names of respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are figured at serial No.12. When no objection in respect of the application of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 was received, the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure-5) granted permission of Ist Phase and the permission of IInd Phase was granted through a formal letter dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure- 6). 6. It is in dispute that later the respondent Nos.3 to 5 transferred the plots through registered sale-deeds to the builders. Subsequently, a tripartite agreement was executed between the builders for development and construction of Shikarbadi Residency. 7. Vide letter dated 09.03.2013 (Annexure-3), the Administrative Commandant of Station Headquarters, Udaipur requested to take immediate action to get the construction work of Shikarbadi Residency stopped. As per the Municipal Corporation, the said letter was received by it on 22.03.2013. 8. The letter dated 09.03.2013 is reproduced hereunder: "District Collector Udaipur (09 Mar.2013) Secretary Urban Improvement Trust Superintendent of Police Udaipur Commissioner Udaipur Nagar Parishad Construction On Land Adjacent To Def Land 1. Please refer to our letter No. 1124/Q/SHQ dated 24 Feb 2013 (only to Divisional Commissioner of UIT and District Collector Udaipur). 2. A new multistorey residential complex named Shikarbadi Residency is under construction at a distance of 100 meter (approx) from the VVIP Helipad of Udaipur Military Station. The building in question will have serious security implications once it comes up. Any multistorey structure in such close vicinity may be utilized by anti national elements to keep a close watch on the activities of Army as also to take a spot shot, if decided on any helicopter landing/take-off. 3. The details of the building are as under:- (a) Name - SR BUILDHOME Pvt. Ltd (b) Builder - Mr Amitabh Goyal (9414113921) Mr. Ashish Sharma (9414157584) (c) Address (Office) - 403, 2nd Floor, Midtown Complex Udaipole, Udaipur Tele-0294-5102846 (d) Address (Site) - 79-80 90-91, B Block, Shikdarbadi, Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur (e) Architect - Sanjay Mathur & Associates 4. In view of the forgoing you are requested to take immediate action to get the construction work in question stopped and also to clear any such work in future too without the NOC (Non Objection Certificate) from LMA (Local Military Authority). In view of the forgoing you are requested to take immediate action to get the construction work in question stopped and also to clear any such work in future too without the NOC (Non Objection Certificate) from LMA (Local Military Authority). Sd- (VM Jadeja) Colonel Administrative Commandant" 9. Again on 28.03.2013, the Administrative Commandant, Station Headquarters Udaipur wrote a letter to the District Collector, Udaipur, Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust and Commissioner, Udaipur Nagar Parishad requesting to stop the construction of residential flats adjacent to the Ekling Garh Military Station. 10. The letter dated 28.03.2013 is reproduced hereunder: "Station HQ Udaipur PIN-900412 C/o 56 APO 28 Mar 2013 1124/Q/SHQ "District Collector Udaipur Secretary Urban Improvement Trust Commissioner Udaipur Nagar Parishad Construction On Land Adjacent To Defence Land 1. Further to our letter No 1124/Q/SHQ dt 09 Mar 2013 (Copy attached) the conversation between the undersigned and District Collector, Udaipur & Superintendent of Police, Udaipur of 22 Mar 2013. 2. You are requested to confirm action is being initiated in the case of the Residency Complex in question. 3. It is further informed that imposition of Ministry of Defence guide lines for issue NOC (Non Objection Certificate) for construction activities was also discussed during the Civil Military Liasion Conference Rajasthan, held at Jaipur on 04 Mar 2013. Chief Secretary Rajasthan has passed directions that Civil Administration should examine the request of Local Military Authority for stopping construction on case to case basis based on security requirements of Army authorities, before final NOC (Non Objection Certificate) for construction in vicinity of defence establishment is granted. 4. In view of the foregoing you are once again requested to take necessary action to stop the construction of residential flats in question adjacent to the Military Station (Ekling Garh Military Station). Sd-x-x-x-x (VM Jadeja) Colonel Administrative Commandant" 11. On 12.04.2013 vide Annexure-7, the District Collector, Udaipur wrote a letter to the various authorities directing them to grant any permission for construction of building or for other matters within 500 metres of Ekling Garh Chhawni without obtaining NOC from its Station Commander. 12. Sd-x-x-x-x (VM Jadeja) Colonel Administrative Commandant" 11. On 12.04.2013 vide Annexure-7, the District Collector, Udaipur wrote a letter to the various authorities directing them to grant any permission for construction of building or for other matters within 500 metres of Ekling Garh Chhawni without obtaining NOC from its Station Commander. 12. The letter dated 12.04.2013 written by the District Collector, Udaipur is reproduced hereunder: ^^dk;kZy; ftyk dyDVj] mn;iqj Øekad% iŒ12@378 jkt@ikVZ@4 fnuakd 12-04-2013 vkns'k vkUrfjd lqj{kk ,oa xksiuh;rk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij tkjh ifji=ksa ,oa funsZ'kksa ds vuqlj.k esa ;g vkns'k fn;s tkrs gS fd LFkkuh; lsuk eq[;ky; ,dfyaxx<+ Nkouh dh lhek dh ckg~; ifjf/k ls 500 ehVj rd fdlh Hkh izdkj dk Hkwfe :ikUrj.k vkns'k] Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr ,oa vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fuekZ.k vkfn dh Lohd`fr v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ ,oa LVs'ku dekUM+j lsuk eq[;ky; ,dfyaxx<+ Nkouh] mn;iqj ds iwokZuqefr ds fcuk tkjh ugh dh tkosaA ,lMh@& fodkl ,lŒ Hkkys ftyk dyDVj] mn;iqjA** 13. Again on 17.05.2013, the Administrative Commandant of Station Headquarters, Udaipur wrote a letter to the District Collector, Udaipur to get the construction work stopped. 14. The letter dated 17.05.2013 is reproduced hereunder: "Station HQ Udaipur PIN-900412 C/o 56 APO 17 May 2013 1124/Q/SHQ "District Collector Udaipur (Rajasthan) Civil Constr Near Cantt 1. Please refer this Headquarters letter No 1124/Q/SHQ dated 08 Mar 2013 and Order issued by your Office vide letter No 12/3 (78) Raj/Part/iv dated 12 Apr 2013. 2. It is intimated that construction work on the multi storey residential complex named " Shikarbadi Residency " in the area of Shikar Bari next to Ekling Garh Military Station boundary wall, which was stopped due to your above referred letter has again commenced (Photographs attached). 3. In view of the foregoing, you are requested to please pass necessary instructions to the concerned authorities to immediately get the construction work stopped due to the grave security repercussions. Sd- (VM Jadeja) Colonel Administrative Commandant" Thereafter Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan issued letter dated 03.07.2013 to the Secretaries of Development Authorities of Jaipur and Jodhpur and to the Secretaries of the Urban Improvement Trust of various cities informing about the provisions for approval of any map of a building situated within the vicinity of 100 metres and 500 metres of Army Cantonment Area without obtaining no objection certificate from the Defence Department. 15. 15. The letter dated 03.07.2013 is reproduced hereunder: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl foHkkx Øekad iŒ&107@ufofo@3@2009@ikVZ&2 t;iqj] fnuakd 03-07-2013 lfpo] t;iqj@tks/kiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] lfpo] uxj fodkl U;kl] t;iqj@tks/kiqj] vyoj@vtesj@Hkjriqj@fHkokM+h@HkhyokM+k@chdkusj@vkcw@fljksgh@dksVk@mn;iqj@Jhxaxkuxj@tSlyesjA fo"k;%& lsuk ds izfr"Bkuksa ds fudV Hkou ekufp= vuqeksnu ds laca/k esa fn'kk&funsZ'k ckcrA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS dh jkT; ds lHkh uxjh; {ks=ksa esa izpfyr Hkou fofu;eksa esa lsuk ds izfr"Bkuksa ds fudV Hkou ekufp= vuqeksnu gsrq fuEu izko/kku fd;s gq;s gS%& vkehZ dsUVksuesUV ,fj;k dh lhek ls 100 ehVj dh ifjf/k esa 12 ehVj dh ÅapkbZ vuqKs; gksxh o 100 ehVj ls vf/kd 500 ehVj rd dh ifjf/k esa 15 ehVj rd dh ÅapkbZ ds Hkou vuqKs; gksxsaA blls vf/kd eaftyksa ds Hkou gsrq j{kk foHkkx ls vukifRr izek.ki= izkIr djds gh Lohd`fr vuqKs; gksxhA iwoZ esa Lohd`fr ekufp=ksa ds Hkou fuekZ.k vuqKs; jgsaxs o bl fofu;e ls izfrcaf/kr ugha gksxsA mijksDr 'krsZ j{kk foHkkx Hkkjr ljdkj ds laosnu'khy@lqj{kk laca/kh lhekvksa ;Fkk vk;q/k fM+iks] ok;jysl Lvs'k vkfn gsrq Hkh j[kh ugha gksxhA j{kk foHkkx ds vkoklh; {ks=ksa] dk;kZy; ifjljksa] j{kk fpfdRlky;ksa] lkeqnkf;d Hkk"kkvksa] euksjatu dsUnzksa vkfn gsrq mijksDr 'krksZ dks j[ks tkus vFkok vukifRr izek.k i= vfuok;Zrk ugha jgsxhA bl laca/k esa lHkh dks mDr izko/kku dh dBksjrk ls ikyuk lqfuf'pr fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA Hkonh; ,lMh@& ¼izdk'k pUnz 'kekZ½ la;qDr 'kklu lfpo&r`rh;A** 16. Thereafter in October 2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, Local Bodies, respondent-8 under section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 challenging the permissions granted to construct Shikarbadi Residency. Along with the said appeal, an application was also preferred with the prayer for condoning the delay. The appeal was contested by the builders and the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur. The Director, Local Bodies while condoning the delay in filing the appeal dismissed the same vide order dated 24.02.2014. Hence, this writ petition. 17. Mr. R.D. Rastogi - Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned order passed by the Director Local Bodies cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the Director has rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any order, which mandates that before raising a building near a defence establishment, NOC of the Defence Department is necessary. 18. Mr. 18. Mr. Rastogi has submitted that the Director has grossly erred in observing that the District Collector vide order dated 12.04.2013 and the Local Self Department vide order dated 03.07.2013 issued prohibitory orders and directed for obtaining no-objection certificate from the Defence Department, whereas in the case of Shikarbadi Residency permissions were granted by the Municipal Corporation prior to issue of those orders and the prohibitory order cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 19. It is contended that the Ministry of Defence way back on 18.05.2011, issued guidelines for issuance of no-objection certificate for construction of building and in those guidelines, it is clearly provided that where the Municipal Laws do require consultation with the Station Commander before a building plan is approved, yet any construction coming up within 100 metres (for multi storey building of more than four storeys the distance shall be 500 meters) radius of defence establishment can be raised only after obtaining no-objection certificate from the Station Commander. 20. It is further contended that though there is no specific mention of the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 in the memo of appeal but the gist of the guidelines was very well defined in the multiple paras of the memo of appeal, however the Director, without taking into consideration the same has straightway dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in illegal manner while observing that no such order is produced on record by the defence authorities, which prohibits construction of building near to a defence establishment without obtaining no-objection certificate from the Defence Department. 21. It is further contended that though no specific statute has been framed on the subject that at how much distance from an Army Station, a building can be raised but the administrative orders issued in this respect from the Ministry of Defence of Union of India and State Governments are also binding and have statutory force of law and the same cannot be ignored. 22. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 and in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 14 Scale 323. 23. Mr. 22. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 and in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 14 Scale 323. 23. Mr. Rastogi has prayed that it is a fit case where the impugned order passed by the Director, Department of Local Self Bodies, Government of Rajasthan is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded for deciding it afresh after taking into consideration the guidelines dated 18.05.2011. 24. Mr. Rastogi has further argued that the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur without taking into consideration the fact that there is specific prohibition in granting permission for raising construction on a land within 100 metres and 500 metres radius of defence establishment, has illegally granted the permissions to the respondent-builders to raise construction of Shikarbadi Residency. 25. It is further contended that the Station Commander vide letters dated 19.01.2011 and 11.03.2011 specifically raised objections regarding construction of multi storey building near Ekling Garh Chhawni before the District Collector and other authorities, but ignoring the said objections, the Municipal Corporation has illegally granted permission to the respondent builders for raising construction of the Shikarbadi Residency. 26. It is also argued that the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Defence were in force on the day when the permission for Ist phase was granted to the respondent builders vide order dated 30.09.2011 and it is settled law that a building plan can only be sanctioned according to the Regulations prevailing at the time of such sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4349/2013, Union of India & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan dated 30.05.2014 along with three other connected writ petitions. 27. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the fact that no-objection certificate has been obtained from the Station Commander of Ekling Garh Chhawni by the builders, the permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for raising construction of Shikarbadi Residency vide letters dated 30.09.2011 and 28.01.2013 are null and void and liable to be set aside. 28. 27. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the fact that no-objection certificate has been obtained from the Station Commander of Ekling Garh Chhawni by the builders, the permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for raising construction of Shikarbadi Residency vide letters dated 30.09.2011 and 28.01.2013 are null and void and liable to be set aside. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the respondent-builders have raised construction of building in violation of the terms and conditions of the permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation vide Annexures-5 and 6. It is contended that initially, there was no permission for construction of basement, however, the respondent-builders have illegally constructed the basement. It is also contended that the Ist phase permission was granted for constructing stilt parking at ground floor + 2 storeyes and the IInd phase permission was granted to raise 3 to 6 storeyes, however, the respondents-builders have illegally constructed 7th storey without there being any permission and, therefore, the construction raised by the respondent-builders in violation of the permission is liable to be demolished. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahoo, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 464 has submitted that the illegal construction raised by the respondent-builders, in violation of the conditions of the permission is liable to be demolished. 30. It is also argued that the illegal construction raised by the builders cannot be regularized and in support of this contention, Mr. Rastogi has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Esha Ekta Apartments Ltd. & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 689 and Shanti Sports Club & Anr. v. UOI & Ors., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705 . 31. Mr. Rastogi further submitted that it is settled that national security shall be treated to have paramount importance and national interest should be pitted against private interest. In support of this argument, he has placed reliance on decision of Bombay High Court rendered in UOI v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (4) BomCR 549 and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 31.10.2013 rendered in Krishan Chand Jain v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 13543 of 1990). 32. In support of this argument, he has placed reliance on decision of Bombay High Court rendered in UOI v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (4) BomCR 549 and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 31.10.2013 rendered in Krishan Chand Jain v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 13543 of 1990). 32. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the builders and Municipal Corporation Udaipur have vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that at the time when the permission was granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur for raising construction vide orders dated 03.09.2011 and 28.01.2013, there was no such restriction/prohibition in raising construction near a defence establishment and in the absence of the same, no fault can be found with the action of the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur in granting permission to the respondent-builders for raising construction on the land of Shikarbadi Residency. 33. It is contended that the petitioners have failed to produce any such prohibitory order, regulations or statute before the Director, Local Bodies in support of their claim that before seeking permission from the Local Bodies for raising construction on a land near a defence establishment, a builder is required to seek no-objection certificate from the Defence Authorities and, therefore, the Director, Local Bodies has rightly observed that in the absence of any such prohibitory orders or regulations, prevailing at that time, the permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur for raising construction of the Shikarbadi Residency cannot be interfered with. 34. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Aggarwal on behalf of the builders has vehemently argued that as a matter of fact the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 cannot be termed as statute or an administrative order having statutory force. It is contended that the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 only prescribes procedure for the Station House Commanders to issue no-objection certificates or raising objections in those cases where construction of a high-rise building is coming up on a land within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of any defence establishment. 35. It is contended that the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 nowhere prohibit construction of a building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius near a defence establishment without obtaining no-objection certificate from the Station House Commander. 36. 35. It is contended that the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 nowhere prohibit construction of a building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius near a defence establishment without obtaining no-objection certificate from the Station House Commander. 36. It is further contended that the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 prescribe the procedure for issuance of no-objection certificate and as per the said procedure, the Station Commander must feel that any construction coming up within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of a defence establishment can be a security hazard and then it has to refer the matter immediately to its next higher authority and after getting approval from the higher authority can raise objection before the Local Authorities of the State Government Agencies with a prayer for cancellation of permission or seeking NOC from it. It is argued that in the present case, the petitioner has disclosed that when the Station Commander formed an opinion that the construction of Shikarbadi Residency can be a security hazard and when the matter was referred to higher authority and after getting its approval objection is raised. It is contended that in the absence of such details, it can be presumed that objection raised by the Station Commander is in accordance with the guidelines dated 18.05.2011, hence, the same cannot be entertained. 37. It is submitted that Administrative Commander for the first time raised objections regarding the construction of Shikarbadi Residency vide letter dated 09.03.2013, however, prior to that, the permissions for Ist Phase and IInd Phase were already granted and as per the order issued by the Joint Secretary of the Local Self Department on 03.07.2013, the permissions granted earlier would be affected by the prohibition imposed regarding the construction of a building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of a defence establishment. 38. Learned counsel for the builders has, therefore, argued that when at the time of granting permission to the respondents, new regulations or prohibition orders restraining construction of a building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius near a defence establishment were in force, the permissions granted in favour of the builders cannot be interfered with. 39. Learned counsel for the builders has denied the allegations of the petitioners that the builders have constructed Shikarbadi Residency in violation of the terms and conditions of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur. 39. Learned counsel for the builders has denied the allegations of the petitioners that the builders have constructed Shikarbadi Residency in violation of the terms and conditions of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur. It is contended that the construction has been raised by the builders strictly in accordance with the conditions of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur and there is no violation of any of the conditions. 40. Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur has also argued that for the first time, the petitioner objected, regarding the permission granted to the builders, vide letter dated 09.03.2013, however, prior to that the permission for construction of Shikarbadi Residency had already been granted to the builders and looking to this fact alone, it cannot be said that the respondent - Municipal Corporation, Udaipur committed any illegality in granting said permission. 41. Mr. Anurag Shukla, however, asserts that if there is any violation of the conditions of construction permission by the builders, the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur will take into consideration the same and any portion illegally constructed by the builders in violation of conditions of permissions would be dealt with in accordance with law. 42. Learned counsel appearing for the builders has additionally submitted that till now the respondent-builders have invested crores of rupees in construction of building and they are bound to give the possession of the flats to the persons, who have booked the same by paying hefty amounts but due to the adamency of the petitioners the construction of the building is halted and the respondent-builders are suffering huge losses. 43. Learned counsel for the builders has further submitted that adjacent to the Shikarbadi Residency constructed by the petitioners, there are number of buildings of the same height or more than that and in such circumstances, the objections raised by the petitioners regarding security concerns are without any basis. 44. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and carefully scrutinized the material available on record as well as the record produced by Municipal Corporation, Udaipur. 45. There cannot be any doubt that every defence establishment has its own importance and needs to be secured from the outside intervention and any possible inroads into a defence establishment has to be stopped or minimized. 46. 45. There cannot be any doubt that every defence establishment has its own importance and needs to be secured from the outside intervention and any possible inroads into a defence establishment has to be stopped or minimized. 46. I would also like to clarify that even if several other buildings of the same height or more than that exist in the locality, where the Shikarbadi Residency is situated, it cannot be ruled that on this count alone, the objection regarding the construction of Shikarbadi Residency raised by the petitioner needs to be addressed. The existence of multy storey or high rised buildings in the vicinity ipso facto cannot act as an estoppel for all time to come and if the defence authorities feel that construction of high rise building near a defence establishment may cause security concerns, it is open for them to raise objections about the same. 47. This Court is also in agreement with the argument of Mr. Rastogi that in the absence of any specific statute on the subject, administrative orders or guidelines issued by the competent authority are having statutory force of law and same cannot be ignored. The law on this point is well settled as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santram v. State of Rajasthan and in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) on which learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on. However, it is also settled that the building plans can only be sanctioned according to the regulations prevailing at the time of such sanction as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4349/2013) (supra). 48. Several other documents, issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and Local Self Department of Government of Rajasthan, are placed on record by rival parties, which have certainly been issued after the permissions granted to the builders for construction of Shikarbadi Residency, however, if subsequent orders passed by the various authorities have any bearing on the use and occupancy of any building located near a defence establishment, the same can be dealt with by appropriate authorities in accordance with law. I restrain myself from giving a finding in respect of the said documents as the precise controversy raised in this petition is about the validity of the permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur for construction of Shikarbadi Residency. 49. Now the question before the Court is whether at the time of granting permission to the respondent-builders for raising construction of Shikarbadi Residency, was there any statute, law, regulations or guidelines, which mandatorily require for no objection certificate from defence establishment, near which the permission was granted for raising building. 50. The Works of Defence Act, 1903 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1903'), provides for imposing restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of the land in the vicinity of works of defence in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions as well as for determining the amount of compensation to be paid on account of such imposition. 51. As per the preamble, the Act of 1903 is enacted with the object to prescribe restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the land in the vicinity of works of defence so that such land may be kept free from buildings and obstructions. Provision regarding payment of compensation on account of such imposition is also provided in the Act of 1903. 52. It is noticed that in the Act of 1903, 'works of defence' have been defined, in the vicinity whereof the land on which restrictions are to be imposed ought to be situated, however, section 3 of the Act of 1903 provides that whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary to impose restriction upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of any work of defence or of any site intended to be used or to be acquired for any such work, in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. 53. Section 3(2) of the Act of 1903 provides that the said declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated and the place where a sketch plan of the land may be inspected. 53. Section 3(2) of the Act of 1903 provides that the said declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated and the place where a sketch plan of the land may be inspected. It further provides that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the said declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality. 54. Section 3(3) of the Act of 1903 provides that the said declaration shall be conclusive proof that it is necessary to keep the land free from buildings and other obstructions. 55. Admittedly till date, the Ekling Garh Chhawni has been declared as 'work of defence' by issuance of such declaration published in the Official Gazette as required under section 3 of the Act of 1903 and, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the Act of 1903 has no application in the region where Shikarbadi Residency is situated. 56. Much stress has been laid down on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence on 18.05.2011 to prove that those guidelines imposed restriction on construction of high-rise buildings in the vicinity of 100 metres and 500 metres of Eklingh Garh Chhawni, Udaipur. The guidelines dated 18.05.2011 are reproduced hereunder: "No. 11026/2/2011/D(Lands) Government of India Ministry of Defence New Delhi, the 18th May,2011. To Chief of Army Staff Chief of Air Staff Chief of Naval Staff New Delhi. Subject: Guidelines for issue of 'No Objection Certificate (NOC)' for building constructions. *********** Of late, issue of NOC for construction on lands adjacent to Defence Establishments has generated avoidable controversies particularly in two recent cases, viz., Sukhna and Adarsh. Various issues involved in these two cases were reviewed and the matter has been considered in detail in the Govt. in consultation with the services. It is felt that Works of Defence Act, 1903 which imposes restrictions upon use and enjoyment of land in vicinity of Defence Establishments needs to be comprehensively amended so as to take care of security concerns of defence forces. While the process of amendment has been put in motion and may take some time, it was felt necessary to issue instructions in the interim to regulate grant of NOC. While the process of amendment has been put in motion and may take some time, it was felt necessary to issue instructions in the interim to regulate grant of NOC. The objective of these instructions is to strike a balance between the security concerns of the forces and the right of public to undertake the construction activities on their land. Following guidelines are therefore laid down: (a) In places where local municipal laws require consultation with the Station Commander before a building plan is approved, the Station Commander may convey its views after seeking approval from next higher authority below the rank of Briagdier or equivalent within four months of receipt of such requests or within the specified period, if any, required by law. Objection/views/NOC will be conveyed only to State Government agencies or to Municipal authorities, and under no circumstances shall be conveyed to builders/private parties. (b) Where the local municipal laws do so require, yet the Station Commander feels that any construction coming up within 100 meter (for multistorey building of more than four storeys the distance shall be 500 meters) radius of defence establishment can be a security hazard, it should refer the matter immediately to its next higher authority in the chain of its command, in case the next higher authority is also so convinced, then the Station Commander may convey its objection/views to the local municipality or State Government agencies. In case the municipal authority/State Government do take cognizance of the said objection, then the matter may be taken up with higher authorities, if need be through AHQ/MoD. (c) Objection/Views/NOC shall be given by any authority other than Station Commander to the local municipality or State Government agencies and shall be given directly to private parties/builders under any circumstances. (d) NOC once issued will be withdrawn without the approval of the Service Hqrs. 2. These instructions will apply where constructions are regulated by the provisions of the existing acts/notifications viz., Cantonments Acts, 2006, Air Craft Act, MoCA, 1934, Gazette Notification SO 84(E) dated 14.01.2011 (as revised from time to time), Works of Defence Act, 1903, etc. In such cases provisions of the concerned Act/Notification will continue to prevail. Sd- (Dr. A.K. Singh) Director (L&C) Copy to: DGDE; DRDO; Coast Guard HQ; CGDA; DGQA; OFB [through D(Fy-II)]" 57. In such cases provisions of the concerned Act/Notification will continue to prevail. Sd- (Dr. A.K. Singh) Director (L&C) Copy to: DGDE; DRDO; Coast Guard HQ; CGDA; DGQA; OFB [through D(Fy-II)]" 57. Now a plain reading of those guidelines makes it clear that these guidelines are issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India and addressed to the Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Air Staff and Chief of Naval Staff, New Delhi and copy of the same is forwarded to Defence Establishments. Those guidelines specify that as the Act of 1903 is in process of amendment and may take some time, instructions in the interim to regulate the grant of NOC are issued with the object to strike a balance between the security concerns of the forces and the right of public to undertake the construction activities on their land. 58. Clause (a) of the guidelines provides that where local municipal laws require consultation with the Station Commander before a building plan is approved, the Station Commander may convey its views after seeking approval from the next higher authority within four months of receipt of such requests or within the specified period. It further provides that objection/views/NOC will only be conveyed to the State Government or Municipal Authorities and the builders/private parties. 59. Clause (b) of the above referred guidelines is in relation to the cases where there is no requirement of consultation before approving a building plan with the local laws. As per the said clause, if the Station Commander feels that any construction coming up within 100 metres (for multi storey building of more than four storyes the distance shall be 500 metres) radius of defence establishment can be a security hazard, it should refer the matter immediately to its next higher authority in the chain of its command and if the next higher authority is also convinced that construction of any building within the specified distance can be a security hazard, then the Station Commander may convey its objection/views to the local municipality or State Government agencies and if no cognizance is taken of the said objection, then the matter may be taken up with the higher authorities. 60. In the opinion of the Court, the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 ipso facto do restrict construction of a building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of a defence establishment. 60. In the opinion of the Court, the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 ipso facto do restrict construction of a building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of a defence establishment. The guidelines are in the form of instructions to the Station Commanders of defence establishments to be followed while issuing no objection certificates for building plans or for raising objections regarding such plans on a land situated nearby the defence stations. It is also to be noticed that the objection and views of the Station Commander of a defence establishment are to be raised only in cases where he/she feels that any type of construction within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of a defence establishment can be security hazard, then objection can be raised with the approval from the higher authorities. The guidelines dated 18.05.2011 nowhere states that no building can be raised near 100 metres or 500 metres radius of defence establishment without seeking no-objection certificate from the Station Commander of that defence establishment. 61. As reiterated above, the guidelines dated 18.05.2011 are in the form of instructions to the Station Commander to be followed while issuing NOC for building construction near defence establishment. 62. In view of the above discussions, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the guidelines dated 18.05.2011, the permissions for construction of Shikarbadi Residency granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur dated 30.09.2011 and 28.01.2013 are liable to be set aside, is tenable. 63. Moreover, though the said guidelines have been produced before the Director, Local Bodies, which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner but as held above that these guidelines do ipso facto prohibit construction of a building near 100 metres and 500 metres radius of a defence establishment, even if the same were brought into the notice of the Director, the same would be of no consequence. 64. As per the facts of the case as noted above, the Station Commander of Ekling Garh Chhawni raised objection regarding the construction of Shikarbadi Residency for the first time vide letter dated 09.03.2013, which was received by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur on 22.03.2013. Further objection was raised by the Station Commander vide letter dated 28.03.2013. 64. As per the facts of the case as noted above, the Station Commander of Ekling Garh Chhawni raised objection regarding the construction of Shikarbadi Residency for the first time vide letter dated 09.03.2013, which was received by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur on 22.03.2013. Further objection was raised by the Station Commander vide letter dated 28.03.2013. Thereafter, the District Collector on 12.04.2013 for the first time directed the various authorities to grant any permission for construction of any building or for other matters within 500 metres radius of Ekling Garh Chhawni without obtaining NOC from the Station Commander. 65. Thereafter, the Administrative Commandant vide letter dated 17.05.2013 again raised objection regarding the construction of Shikarbadi Residency and after that Joint Secretary, Local Self Department vide letter dated 03.07.2013 informed about the provisions made in the building regulations to the effect that no building plan in respect of a building having height of more than 12 metres within the radius of 100 metres and building more than 15 metres height within the radius of 500 metres radius of the defence establishment can be approved without obtaining no-objection certificate from the defence department. In this letter, it is clarified that the earlier building plans approved will be affected by this provision. 66. So as per the above for the first time, the prohibitory order was issued by the District Collector, Udaipur on 12.04.2013 and thereafter, the Joint Secretary of the Local Self Department issued the prohibitory order on 03.07.2013 specifying that the earlier building plans approved shall be affected. It is in dispute that the building plans of Shikarbadi Residency were approved on 30.09.2011 and 28.01.2013 i.e. much prior to the issuance of the orders dated 12.04.2013 and 03.07.2013. 67. Though the petitioner is claiming that objections regarding the construction of high-rise building near Ekling Garh Chhawni was raised by the Station Commander on 19.01.2011 and 11.03.2011 but from perusal of the said letters addressed to the District Collector, Udaipur, annexed with the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is clear that in those letters, the Station Commander has raised specific objection regarding construction of a building by Narayan Lal, Om Prakash son of Teja Ram Dhabai and regarding the Shikarbadi Residency. The petitioner has also failed to produce any evidence to suggest that the Station House commander has recorded its satisfaction regarding its concern about the Shikarbadi Residency at any point of time and has raised objection regarding construction of it after getting approval from any higher authority. 68. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that on the day when the permissions were granted for raising construction of Shikarbadi Residency on 30.09.2011 and 28.01.2013, no orders were in existence, which prohibits construction of multi storey building within 100 metres or 500 metres radius of Ekling Gargh Chhawni, Udaipur and no specific objection has been raised by the Station House Commander regarding the construction of it. 69. This fact also cannot be ignored that Municipal Corporation, Udaipur vide notice 22.07.2011, published in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika invited objections from the public at large before granting permission for construction of Shikarbadi Residency, however, in response to that no objection has been filed by the Station Commander of Ekling Garh Chhawni. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the objections were invited only in respect of the title of land and therefore, the same have been filed by them but the said argument cannot be accepted as the public notice specifically invited objections before granting permission for construction and it cannot be said that the objections regarding title of the land have only been invited. 70. In view of the above discussions, I do find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Director Local Bodies, hence, no interference is called for. 71. It is also held that as there was no prohibitory order/instruction exist at the time when the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur granted permission to the builders for construction of Shikarbadi Residency, there is no illegality in the action of the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur of granting permissions for it. 72. 71. It is also held that as there was no prohibitory order/instruction exist at the time when the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur granted permission to the builders for construction of Shikarbadi Residency, there is no illegality in the action of the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur of granting permissions for it. 72. So far as contention of the petitioner that the builders have raised construction of Shikarbadi Residency in violation of the terms and conditions of permission granted to it, suffice to say that the petitioner is free to raise its objection about the illegal/irregular construction raised by the builders and if any such objection is raised or otherwise also it comes within the knowledge of the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur that there is any violation in construction of Shikarbadi Residency, the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur is bound to consider the same and thereafter to act strictly in accordance with law. 73. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with above observations. 74. Stay petition also stands dismissed.