JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original petitioner and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21/09/2016 in the Special Civil Application No.9407 of 2016. 2. The writ-application came to be filed by the appellant herein with the following prayers:- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the form of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the Respondent No.5 to remove/demolish the nursery belonging to the Department of Forest, Government of Gujarat situated right outside Iscon Villas, Airport-Gandhinagar Road, Ahmedabad forming part of Town Planning Scheme No.68 (Hansol-2) at Ahmedabad, Gujarat as per the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976; (B) During the pendency of admission, hearing and final outcome of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representations preferred by the petitioner [Annexed at Annexure-C (Colly.)]; (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant is an Association of 68 residential bungalows known and recognized as the Iscon Villas, situated at the Airport-Gandhinagar Road, Hansol, Sardarnagar, Ahmedabad. The society is a part of the Town Planning Scheme No.68 (Hansol-2). It is the case of the appellant that the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.68 came to be sanctioned by the State Government and in accordance with said scheme, a 200 ft. road right outside the said society is to be constructed. It is also the case of the appellant that the Forest Department of the State Government is running a Nursery right outside the society since 2014-15. The grievance voiced by the appellant is that although its being almost more than six years that the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.68 has been sanctioned, yet it has not been implemented. According to the appellant, the nursery needs to be demolished/removed at the earliest for the purpose of construction of the 200 ft. road. As the authority failed to act accordingly, the appellant came before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.9407 of 2016. 4. According to the appellant, the nursery needs to be demolished/removed at the earliest for the purpose of construction of the 200 ft. road. As the authority failed to act accordingly, the appellant came before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.9407 of 2016. 4. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ-application observed as under:- "6. As could be seen from the scheme of the Town Planning Act, which has also been considered in various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that framing of the Town Planning Scheme and the implementation thereof is a matter with the concerned government or the authority. Further, the scheme of the Town Planning Act lays down a detailed procedure with regard to consideration of the objections and representations by all concerned at different stages before it is finalized and implemented. Even apart from that, it also provides that the state government may modify the scheme and Section 70, 70(A) and 71 of the Town Planning Act refers to the variation of the Town Planning Scheme subject to the procedure. Therefore, the submissions which have been made by learned Advocate for the petitioner for eviction or removal of the Nursery, which has been set up, is devoid of any merits and without any justification. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also not been able to establish how the Nursery could be removed when it is not established that it is illegal. It is also a fact that the Forest department is a part of the government and once the Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned, the area of the land as provided for the public purpose would accordingly vests with the government. The government may use it for different public purposes, and providing for the road or a Nursery is also a public purpose. Further, the petitioner has not established that there is any right over the land over which the Nursery is set up as the land vests in the government and it is for the government to make use of the land for which the petitioner Society or the members of the society will not have any claim or right to suggest as to the manner in which either it should be utilized or for which public purpose it should be utilized. It is none of the function of the person like the petitioner who want to stall the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme on various grounds and then to complain that the Town Planning Scheme is implemented selectively. As pointed out, on the one hand, the petitioner has stated that it is being implemented selectively, meaning thereby, the scheme is implemented, and therefore, on that count itself, it would disentitle the petitioner for claiming any mandamus when the authorities are in the process of implementing the scheme. Whether it is implemented selectively and whether it causes prejudice, its a question of fact, which is required to be decided on the basis of the material and evidence, and therefore, cannot be decided in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this matter. Again, the Scheme of the Town Planning Act itself provides for recourse for raising an objection at different stages. Further, in catena of judicial pronouncements, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that once the scheme is framed and being implemented, the scope for the courts would be limited, and after it is finalized, it becomes the law. Therefore, without any foundation or justification for invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief as prayed for cannot be entertained merely because the petitioner feels that the Nursery could not have been there near the society. 7. Again, it is well settled by catena of judicial pronouncements that the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary jurisdiction for the courts to exercise in the interest of justice, but, it may not be claimed as a matter of right unless it can be shown for violation of any fundamental right or breach of duty etc. In the facts of the case, the scheme is implemented coupled with the fact that there is an alternative remedy provided in the Town Planning Act itself at different stages including the provision for variation of the Town Planning Scheme. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has stated that it caused nuisance or the traffic problem, is not a matter, which can be entertained in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has stated that it caused nuisance or the traffic problem, is not a matter, which can be entertained in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the government as well as the implementing authority to consider in public interest, and the courts cannot substitute or superimpose any such provision whether to use the particular land for a particular public purpose. Admittedly, there is no right, title, interest of the petitioner over the land in which the Nursery is set up. Therefore, to say that the Nursery is set up in the nearby area or the adjoining land of the government, is not a ground for entertaining such petition and rather it would amount to permitting the abuse of the proceedings in such guise of implementation of the Town Planning Scheme. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be stated that the Forest department itself is a part of the government, and therefore, when the land is vested in the government, it can be used by the State Government for any public purpose, and without proper material before the court, it cannot be entertained. 8. Again, reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the provisions of the statute that the Town Planning Scheme is not implemented, is misconceived and it is rather a self-contradictory statement. Section 65 which has been referred to will not be attracted as it is a enabling provision for the State Government to take action. It is not the case herein. Therefore, the judgments, which have been cited, does not support the submissions, which are sought to be made for some hidden agenda, and the proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be abused. The submission with regard to the nuisance of the mosquitoes or the traffic problem is also misconceived inasmuch as in urban area such issues are bound to crop up with the development in any area, and for that, it is not a matter of the courts discretion, but it is a matter of planning which the government may consider and may have to revisit with every development and issues which may come up with the passage of time. Therefore, the present petition is thoroughly misconceived and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Notice is discharged." 5. Therefore, the present petition is thoroughly misconceived and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Notice is discharged." 5. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant association is here before this Court with this appeal. 6. Mr. Awtani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in rejecting the writ-application. 7. According to the learned counsel, it is not in dispute that the preliminary town planning scheme has been finalized and sanctioned and according to the said scheme, a 200 ft. road is to be constructed. For the implementation of the scheme, the nursery, which is being run and managed by the Forest Department of the State Government needs to be removed at the earliest. Mr. Awtani would submit that if the town planning scheme, which has already been finalized, is not implemented, then it is always open for the residents of that particular area to seek a writ of mandamus against the authority concerned. In such circumstances, the learned counsel prays that there being merit in this appeal, the same be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, this appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Satyam Chhaya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents nos.2 and 3. This appeal has also been vehemently opposed by Mr. Ronak Raval, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents nos.1 and 5. 9. Mr. Chhaya as well as Mr. Raval submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ-application. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge after due consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter rightly rejected the writ-application. In such circumstances, it is submitted that there being no merit in this appeal, the same be dismissed. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in rejecting the writ-application. 11. Prima-Facie, it appears that the residents of the association are feeling uncomfortable with the nursery being run and managed by the Forest Department of the State Government. 11. Prima-Facie, it appears that the residents of the association are feeling uncomfortable with the nursery being run and managed by the Forest Department of the State Government. It is possible that the residents may be of the opinion that the same is a nuisance or is causing unnecessary obstruction. However, the fact remains that the land on which the nursery is being run and managed, belongs to the State Government. The learned Single Judge is of the opinion that once the town planning scheme is sanctioned, the area of the land as provided for the public purpose would vest with the Government. Once the land vests with the Government, it is always open for the Government to use it for different public purposes. The learned Single Judge is of the opinion that providing for a road or a nursery is also a public purpose. The learned Single Judge has also taken the view that the nursery may be proving to be a nuisance but that itself is not sufficient to invoke the writ-jurisdiction in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Chhaya submitted that the residents of the Villas want to park their vehicles on the plot of land, where the nursery is there and therefore, this litigation. As alleged by Mr. Chhaya may be true. However, it will be too much for this Court to say that the authorities are not implementing the Town Planning Scheme only with a view to save the nursery. There nothing special about the nursery that the authorities may go to the extent of not implementing the Town Planning Scheme. 12. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ-application. It may be true that the town planning scheme has been finalized and according to the scheme, a road of about 200 ft. is to pass through. However, it will be too much for this Court to direct the authority as to how to implement the town planning scheme or in what manner to implement the town planning scheme or within what period of time. Ultimately, it is for the authority concerned to look into the matter in accordance with law. is to pass through. However, it will be too much for this Court to direct the authority as to how to implement the town planning scheme or in what manner to implement the town planning scheme or within what period of time. Ultimately, it is for the authority concerned to look into the matter in accordance with law. Having regard to the aspects taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that we should not interfere or disturb the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. It goes without saying that once the Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned, the same should be implemented in accordance with law. Except the map, no other materials has been placed on record to indicate that a 200 ft. road is passing through the society in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme. For the present, we may believe what the appellant has asserted. We leave it to the concerned authorities to look into the matter in accordance with law and try to ascertain why the Town Planning Scheme is not being given effect. Notice discharged.