ORDER : 1. The petitioner-M/s. E.M.C.I.P.I. Infrastructure Private Limited (for short ‘the petitioner-Company’) by filing present writ petition craves indulgence of this Court to quash and set aside the communication/order dated 08.02.2017 issued to the petitioner-Company by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the JDA’) stating that in compliance of the order of the High Court in relation to Amani Shah Nala (Dravyavati River) and according to the report of the NEERI the width of Amani Shah Nala is 137 meter and Khasra Nos. 2540/2, 2542/2, 2540/3 and 2542/3 are effected and the JDA has a right to initiate action in compliance of the directions of the High Court. He also prayed to quash and set aside another notice dated 16.08.2018 which was placed on record with an additional affidavit. 2. Mr. A.M. Dhar, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Ms. Anita Agarwal and Mr. Laxmi Kant Tailor, submitted that the petitioner-Company purchased the agriculture land bearing Khasra Nos. 2540/2, 2542/2, 2540/3 and 2542/3 situated at Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, through a registered sale deed which was later-on converted from agriculture to commercial purpose and the JDA issued the commercial lease deed of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company submitted a proposal for construction of a hotel and the respondent-JDA approved the map for construction of hotel on 01.06.2012 and also gave the permission to raise the construction. He further submitted that when the construction was under progress, the respondent-JDA without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, demolished the boundary wall at the site and tried to install their pillars. The petitioner-Company immediately approached the respondent-JDA and made a representation on 14.10.2016. When no fruitful purpose was served, the petitioner-Company filed a Reference Application No.541/2016 before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Tribunal’). The Appellate Tribunal passed the order dated 26.10.2016 in favour of the petitioner-Company. Even after the specific directions of the Appellate Tribunal that the construction raised by the petitioner-Company shall not be demolished without issuing any show cause notice and allowing opportunity of hearing, the respondent-JDA issued impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017. Sr. Counsel submitted that the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 is arbitrary, capricious and devoid of adherence to the cardinal principles of natural justice. Sr. Counsel submitted that the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 is arbitrary, capricious and devoid of adherence to the cardinal principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 fails to outline the specific reasons for the initiation of actions against the petitioner-Company so as to justify the action. He also submitted that there is lack of clarity in the impugned communication/order dated 08.02.2017 and since the petitioner-Company has not encroached upon the government land as the lease deed has already been issued by the respondent-JDA of the land in favour of the petitioner-Company, the whole action of the respondent-JDA against the petitioner-Company is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Mr. Amit Kuri, counsel appearing for the respondent-JDA in the reply to the writ petition raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the count that the work of beautification and development of Dravavati River has been taken up by the State Government, in the larger public interest, under the directions/ orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He also submitted that against the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 issued by the JDA, the petitioner-Company has got an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Sub-section (8)(a) of Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act of 1982’) before the Appellate Tribunal. He also submitted that the land in question has been identified by the experts to be the land of Dravavati River as also shown by the JDA on the basis of the report of the experts and the said list of land including the land of the petitioner-Company has also been got issued by the JDA. He also submitted that in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9497/2007 (P.N. Mandola Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 27.04.2015, the Division Bench of this Court has directed to carry out a publication in the newspapers, that anyone, who has already made encroachment, and that, anybody who makes encroachments, will be doing it, at his own risk of demolition and the encroachments will be removed without any notice. He also submitted that a team of NEERI, consists of environmental experts and hydrology experts of the land in question was described as a part of Dravavati River. He also submitted that a team of NEERI, consists of environmental experts and hydrology experts of the land in question was described as a part of Dravavati River. He also submitted that a fresh notice was also issued to the petitioner-Company on 16.08.2018. He also submitted that the lease deed of the petitioner-Company is nullity in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Court and petitioner-Company is an encroacher. He further submitted that in view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner-Company, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that count alone. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition when the respondent-JDA issued another notice dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner-Company moved an application seeking amendment in the writ petition. 5. This Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 in-stead of allowing the petitioner-Company to make an amendment in the writ petition, directed the petitioner to place on record the subsequent events by way of an additional affidavit, which shall be considered while hearing the petition and granting any relief. In view of the liberty granted to the petitioner-Company for filing an additional affidavit, the petitioner-Company filed the additional affidavit on 26.04.2023 so as to place on record the notice dated 16.08.2018. 6. Considered the submissions made by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties. 7. A preliminary issue has been raised by the counsel appearing for the respondent-JDA that the writ petition challenging the impugned communication/order dated 08.02.2017 is not maintainable as the petitioner-Company is having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982 and the another notice dated 16.08.2018 has been issued by the JDA in accordance with law. 8. The facts borne out from the pleadings reveal that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner-Company from its khatedars and the same was got converted from agriculture to commercial purposes and thereafter, submitted plan and application for construction of hotel which was approved by the JDA and the construction of hotel was under-going at the time of issuing of the impugned notice. When the construction of the hotel after seeking permission from the JDA was under-going, the JDA demolished the boundary wall of the premises and tried to erect their pillars. The petitioner-Company immediately approached to the JDA and submitted a representation and thereafter approached the Appellate Tribunal by way of filing a Reference Application No.541/2016. When the construction of the hotel after seeking permission from the JDA was under-going, the JDA demolished the boundary wall of the premises and tried to erect their pillars. The petitioner-Company immediately approached to the JDA and submitted a representation and thereafter approached the Appellate Tribunal by way of filing a Reference Application No.541/2016. The Appellate Tribunal in view of the statement made by the counsel for the JDA, disposed of the Reference Application vide order dated 26.10.2016, the operative part of which is reproduced as under:- ^^Tkfoizk ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ jgk fd tfoizk }kjk izkFkhZ ds fuekZ.k ds lEcU/k esa fof/kd izfØ;k viukdj vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA mHk; rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dk vk{ksi gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk mlh iz'uxr pkjnhokjh dks fcuk lquokbZ ds /oLr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dks lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k gSA tfoizk ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g dFku jgk fd izkFkhZ ds fuekZ.k ds lEcU/k esa fof/kd izfØ;k viukdj dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vizkFkhZ izkf/kdj.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd tfoizk fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k viuk;s rFkk leqfpr lquokbZ dk volj fn;s fcuk izkFkhZ ds iz'uxr O;kolkf;d Hkw[k.M esa fo|eku fuekZ.k dks /oLr ugha djsaA vr% mDr jsQjsUl fuEu funsZ'kksa ds lkFk fu.kkZr fd;k tkrk gS& 1- vizkFkhZ tfoizk] fcuk fof/k d izfØ;k viuk;s [kljk uEcj 2540@2]2540@3 o 2542@3 xzke xksusj] rglhy lkaxkusj] t;iqj esa izkFkhZ ds iz'uxr O;kolkf;d Hkw[k.M esa fo|eku fuekZ.k esa rksMQksM ugha djsA 2- izkFkhZ dks Hkh ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd og bl vkns'k dh vkM esa fdlh rjg dk u;k voS/k fuekZ.k ugha djsA 3- bl vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi lfpo] tsMh, dks okLrs vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Hksth tkosA i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj okn rdfey nkf[ky nrj gksA^^ 9. After passing the order by the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent- JDA without adhering to the directions given by it and the basic law in regard to the principles of natural justice, issued the communication dated 08.02.2017, which is in the form of an order and before issuing the said communication, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner-Company 10. From the bare perusal of the impugned communication/order dated 08.02.2017, it clearly reveals that no details about the orders of the Court referred therein and the report of NEERI have been disclosed. From the bare perusal of the impugned communication/order dated 08.02.2017, it clearly reveals that no details about the orders of the Court referred therein and the report of NEERI have been disclosed. It is the basic principle of the principles of natural justice that a person against whom adverse action is being taken, must be served with a show cause notice which should contain each and every material being used against him. 11. This Court recently in the case of Sriram Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCW P. No. 817/2002) decided on October 11, 2023, has observed in para Nos. 10 to 13 as under:- “10. Initially the principles of natural justice used to be applied to courts of law alone but later on from judicial sphere it extended, to the tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions and then to the statutory authorities and the administrative authorities, who have upon them, the responsibility of determining civil rights or obligations of the people. In normal conditions, an action or a decision, judicial or administrative, affecting rights of an individual and resulting in civil consequence is unthinkable. In the present day, without affording hearing by an unbiased and impartial authority who must act objectively and must also give out his mind, as to what weighed in decision making process, by incorporating reasons to support the decision or, to say so, by giving a speaking order. This is necessary for a society, which is governed by Rule of law. How substantive laws are applied and rights are determined is a question not less important, to say it again, the principles of -natural justice are great humanising principles intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. 11. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Lucknow and Anr., reported in (1980) 3 SCC 1 , has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. As far as the need of show cause notice is concerned under the principles of natural justice, a person proceeded against is required to be informed about the exact nature of charges leveled against him. The authority taking a decision must apply his mind to the explanation furnished. Application of mind must be apparent from the order as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Tar Lochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab [2001] 6 SCC 260. The importance of a show cause notice has been reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Umanath Pandey v. State of UP [2009] 12 SCC 40-43 as under: “Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.” 13. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 , this Court has highlighted that procedural fairness is essential for arriving at correct decisions, by observing: “27. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 , this Court has highlighted that procedural fairness is essential for arriving at correct decisions, by observing: “27. It, thus, cannot be denied that the principles of natural justice are grounded in procedural fairness which ensures taking of correct decisions and procedural fairness is fundamentally an instrumental good, in the sense that procedure should be designed to ensure accurate or appropriate outcomes. In fact, procedural fairness is valuable in both instrumental and non-instrumental terms.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Takano Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr., (Civil Appeal Nos. 487-488 of 2022) decided on February 18, 2022, has observed in para 51 as under:- “51. The conclusions are summarised below: (i) The appellant has a right to disclosure of the material relevant to the proceedings initiated against him. A deviation from the general rule of disclosure of relevant information was made in Natwar Singh (supra) based on the stage of the proceedings. It is sufficient to disclose the materials relied on if it is for the purpose of issuing a show cause notice for deciding whether to initiate an inquiry. However, all information that is relevant to the proceedings must be disclosed in adjudication proceedings; (ii) The Board under Regulation 10 considers the investigation report submitted by the Investigating Authority under Regulation 9, and if it is satisfied with the allegations, it could issue punitive measures under Regulations 11 and 12. Therefore, the investigation report is not merely an internal document. In any event, the language of Regulation 10 makes it clear that the Board forms an opinion regarding the violation of Regulations after considering the investigation report prepared under Regulation 9; (iii) The disclosure of material serves a three-fold purpose of decreasing the error in the verdict, protecting the fairness of the proceedings, and enhancing the transparency of the investigatory bodies and judicial institutions; (iv) A focus on the institutional impact of suppression of material priorities the process as opposed to the outcome. The direction of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Karunakar (supra) that the non-disclosure of relevant information would render the order of punishment void only if the aggrieved person is able to prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to nondisclosure is founded both on the outcome and the process; (v) The right to disclosure is not absolute. The disclosure of information may affect other third-party interests and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. The respondent should prima facie establish that the disclosure of the report would affect third-party rights and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. The onus then shifts to the appellant to prove that the information is necessary to defend his case appropriately; and (vi) Where some portions of the enquiry report involve information on third parties or confidential information on the securities market, the respondent cannot for that reason assert a privilege against disclosing any part of the report. The respondents can withhold disclosure of those sections of the report which deal with third-party personal information and strategic information bearing upon the stable and orderly functioning of the securities market.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Western Geco Industries Ltd., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 263 , has observed in in para Nos. 26 and 28 as under:- “26. What then would constitute the ‘Fundamental policy of Indian Law’ is the question. The decision in Saw Pipes Ltd. (supra) does not elaborate that aspect. Even so, the expression must, in our opinion, include all such fundamental principles as providing a basis for administration of justice and enforcement of law in this country. Without meaning to exhaustively enumerate the purport of the expression “Fundamental Policy of Indian Law”, we may refer to three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that must necessarily be understood as a part and parcel of the Fundamental Policy of Indian law. The first and foremost is the principle that in every determination whether by a Court or other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences, the Court or authority concerned is bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a ‘judicial approach’ in the matter. The first and foremost is the principle that in every determination whether by a Court or other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences, the Court or authority concerned is bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a ‘judicial approach’ in the matter. The duty to adopt a judicial approach arises from the very nature of the power exercised by the Court or the authority does not have to be separately or additionally enjoined upon the fora concerned. What must be remembered is that the importance of Judicial approach in judicial and quasi judicial determination lies in the fact so long as the Court, Tribunal or the authority exercising powers that affect the rights or obligations of the parties before them shows fidelity to judicial approach, they cannot act in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner. Judicial approach ensures that the authority acts bonafide and deals with the subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner and that its decision is not actuated by any extraneous consideration. Judicial approach in that sense acts as a check against flaws and faults that can render the decision of a Court, Tribunal or Authority vulnerable to challenge. In Ridge v. Baldwin [1963 2 All ER 66], the House of Lords was considering the question whether a Watch Committee in exercising its authority under Section 191 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 was required to act judicially. The majority decision was that it had to act judicially and since the order of dismissal was passed without furnishing to the appellant a specific charge, it was a nullity. Dealing with the appellant’s contention that the Watch Committee had to act judicially, Lord Reid relied upon the following observations made by Atkin L.J. in [1924] 1 KB at pp. 206,207:- “Wherever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King’s Bench Division exercised in these writs.” 28. Equally important and indeed fundamental to the policy of Indian law is the principle that a Court and so also a quasi-judicial authority must, while determining the rights and obligations of parties before it, do so in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Equally important and indeed fundamental to the policy of Indian law is the principle that a Court and so also a quasi-judicial authority must, while determining the rights and obligations of parties before it, do so in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Besides the celebrated ‘audi alteram partem’ rule one of the facets of the principles of natural justice is that the Court/authority deciding the matter must apply its mind to the attendant facts and circumstances while taking a view one way or the other. Non-application of mind is a defect that is fatal to any adjudication. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind and disclosure of mind is best done by recording reasons in support of the decision which the Court or authority is taking. The requirement that an adjudicatory authority must apply its mind is, in that view, so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that it can be described as a fundamental policy of Indian Law.” 14. In the present case, on bare perusal of the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017, this Court can safely held that it does not disclose the material being used against the petitioner-Company, though in view of the propositions of law, as referred above, it was obligatory upon the respondent-JDA to disclose the complete details of the judgments of the Court referred therein and so also the report of NEERI which is being used against the petitioner-Company declaring the land of the petitioner-Company as Dravavati River, though the JDA itself has issued a lease deed in its favour after the land being purchased by the petitioner-Company from its original khatedar. On perusal of the subsequent notice dated 16.08.2018 attached with the additional affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by this Court it also does not disclose that how the land in question of which the petitioner-Company is having a lease deed from the respondent-JDA has been declared or is held to be the land of the Dravavati River. Since the petitioner-Company is having the lease deed issued by the respondent-JDA itself after the land being purchased by the petitioner-Company from its original khatedar and its conversion to the commercial purposes, it is obligatory upon the respondent-JDA to establish and disclose to the petitioner-Company that the land in question is a land of Dravavati River because of the so and so reasons and on the basis of such and such document(s) or orders of the Court but in both the notices i.e. dated 08.02.2017 and 16.08.2018, nothing has been mentioned and also the petitioner-Company has also not been served with the copies of the orders of the Court and the report on the basis of which they relied that the land in question is the land of Dravavati River. 15. The Appellate Tribunal on a reference filed by the petitioner-Company on 26.10.2016 has in clear words ordered that the JDA without following the due process of law and without allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company shall not demolish the construction raised by the petitioner-Company on the land in question. The due process of law in the facts of this case includes the issuance of a show-cause notice disclosing the complete details how and in what manner the JDA can interfere over the land in question. The Appellate Tribunal has also ordered that the petitioner-Company should be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing which includes the issuance of show-cause notice with the disclosure of the material being used against the petitioner-Company including the orders from any Court or any Expert’s report. It is also to be noted that since the lease deed was already issued in favour of the petitioner-Company by the JDA, it was also incumbent upon the respondent-JDA to first proceed for cancellation of the lease deed for whole or part of the land in question, then the petitioner could be declared as an encroacher. 16. In view of the facts of the case as narrated in the above pars so also the case laws referred to above, this Court can safely held that the respondent-JDA has acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in interfering in the construction over the land in question which has been used after due permission of the JDA itself. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 , in para 15 has observed as under:- “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 2021 SC 2114 , has observed in para 27 as under:- “27. The principles of law which emerge are that : (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. The principles of law which emerge are that : (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 19. The principles summarized in the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), were thereafter relied upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 263 . 20. The principles summarized in the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), were thereafter relied upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 263 . 20. Since it has already been held that the action of the respondent-JDA in issuing the communications/ orders dated 08.02.2017 and 16.08.2018, is in violation of the propositions laid down in the above part of this order and therefore, in view of the propositions given in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), Radha Krishan Industries (supra) and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. (supra), this Court held that the preliminary objections raised by the respondent-JDA in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on count of alternative statutory remedy is not sustainable and therefore, the same is rejected and the writ petition is held to be maintainable. 21. Since the impugned communications/ orders have already been held to be in violation of principles of natural justice in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, as referred above, the said impugned communications/ orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as under:- (i) The communications/ orders dated 08.02.2017 and 16.08.2018 made by the JDA to the petitioner-Company, are quashed and set aside; (ii) The respondent-JDA would be at liberty that in case it feels that the petitioner-Company has encroached upon the part of the Dravavati River then the respondent-JDA in view of the Mandate of the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, in Reference Application No. 541/2016, may issue a fresh show cause notice under the Provisions of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 enclosing the material including any order or any report to be used adverse to the petitioner-Company; (iii) On issuance of any such notice as above, on submission of explanation/representation by the petitioner-Company, same shall be considered by the JDA and shall pass a speaking and reasoned order before taking any action against the petitioner-Company; and (iv) In case the order, as referred above, is adverse to the petitioner-Company, the petitioner-Company would be free to avail the legal remedy as available to it under the law. 23. 23. Since the main petition has been disposed of, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.