ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 21st May 2010 passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara which is the appellate Authority under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, when we indicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner that challenge laid to the appellate order dated 21st May 2010 cannot succeed, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment by one day to produce the documents. 3. However, having regard to the scant pleadings all through starting from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3556 of 2002, we have declined to adjourn hearing of this writ petition for producing some document which the learned counsel might arrange to substantiate the stand taken by the M/s. Modern Woollens Pvt. Ltd that it was engaged in the business of import and sale of raw material which was purely natural agricultural product and no processing of the raw material had ever taken place at the premises of the petitioner-firm. 4. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3556 of 2002, the following prayers were made by the petitioner-firm:- “(i) by the writ of prohibition, Respondent No.3 may kindly be prohibited from releasing tax from he petitioner company on the import of natural raw wool used for production of woollen yarn, carpets and woollen tops in pursuance of Notification dated 21-11-2001. (ii) By a writ, order or direction, Respondents be directed to refund the tax already realised from the petitioner company till date in pursuance of the Notification Ann/4 dated 28-11-2001. (iii) That Respondents may be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner without affording it any opportunity of hearing. (iv) Pending decision of the writ petition, if any further order is made or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, same may also be quashed and set aside. (v) Any other relief may also be granted in favour of the petitioner, as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) Costs be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 5. The said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that, on withdrawal of the Notification dated 28th November 2001 the writ petition was rendered infructuous. (vi) Costs be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 5. The said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that, on withdrawal of the Notification dated 28th November 2001 the writ petition was rendered infructuous. However, the writ Court granted a liberty to the petitioner-firm to take legal recourse in accordance with law for other left out remedies. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 08th February 2005 passed by the writ Court, the petitioner-firm preferred S.B. Misc. Application No.48 of 2005 on the ground that the following prayers were not adjudicated by the writ Court:- “…….(ii) By a writ, order or direction, Respondents be directed to refund the tax already realised from the petitioner company till date in pursuance of the Notification Ann/4 dated 28-11-2001. (iii) That Respondents may be restrained from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner without affording it any opportunity of hearing. (iv) Pending decision of the writ petition, if any further order is made or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, same may also be quashed and set aside. (v) Any other relief may also be granted in favour of the petitioner, as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) Costs be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 6. The Review Court clarified the original order dated 8th February 2005 with an observation that the petitioner-firm may prefer an appeal within four weeks with an application for condonation of delay which shall be considered by the appellate Authority sympathetically. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner-firm preferred Appeal No.65 of 2006 which has been dismissed by an order dated 21st May 2010. In this order, while dismissing the appeal filed under Section 139 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the appellate Authority discussed the stand taken by the petitioner-firm in the following manner:- English Translation Now the merits and demerits of the appeal memo are being considered. In this order, while dismissing the appeal filed under Section 139 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the appellate Authority discussed the stand taken by the petitioner-firm in the following manner:- English Translation Now the merits and demerits of the appeal memo are being considered. The most important fact in the appeal memo presented by the appellant is that the respondent Municipal Council Bhilwara, taking the State Government's notification dated 28.11.01 as the basis, has assessed tax on the manufacture of woolen yarn, carpets and woolen tops by the appellant company and has collected the amount of tax as per Appendix 5 from the year 2001-02 to the year 2004-05, whereas the said notification issued by the State Government has not determined any kind of tax on woolen yarn, carpets and woolen tops. The Municipal Council arbitrarily assessed tax and collected it, which should be refunded and also mentioned that now the said notification has been withdrawn again by the State Government. The appellant presented a photocopy of the notification dated 28.11.01 issued by the State Government along with its appeal memo. It was perused. In that, raw material for cloth manufacturing business means cotton fibre, grey cloth and chemicals. 1. Chemicals:- While explaining about chemicals in the said notification, it was stated that chemicals mean all kinds of chemical substances used in the processing process. 2. Grey cloth:- While explaining about grey cloth in the notification, it was stated that grey cloth means the cloth which is imported for processing. 3. Transformer:- While analyzing about transformer, it was clarified that it means taking such goods within the limits of the council on which tax is payable under these rules, and keeping such goods in its warehouse and carrying the goods by the concerned importer trader or firm. 4. Yarn: To clarify the situation about yarn, it was stated that yarn means all kinds of yarn which is imported within the limits of the council for the purpose of cloth manufacturing and whether for personal use or for sale. Clarifying the above mentioned points, it was mentioned in rule 3 of the prescribed notification that grey cloth, yarn fibre, chemicals for the production and processing of cloth within the limits of the Municipal Council, i.e. grey cloth, yarn fibre as well as chemicals have been included in the tax assessment. Clarifying the above mentioned points, it was mentioned in rule 3 of the prescribed notification that grey cloth, yarn fibre, chemicals for the production and processing of cloth within the limits of the Municipal Council, i.e. grey cloth, yarn fibre as well as chemicals have been included in the tax assessment. It is true that the applicant company is engaged in the manufacture of wool yarn, carpets and woolen tops. But processing work is done for manufacturing wool yarn and carpets and it is necessary to use chemicals in the processing work and processing is not possible without the use of chemicals. When processing work is done, polluted water is definitely released and for this reason, the subordinate Municipal Council has assessed pollution tax and taken action for recovery. When the pollution tax has been assessed and recovered by the appellant local body Municipal Council Bhilwara. Apart from this, the appellant himself has come in his appeal by saying that the raw material imported by him is agricultural product and the appellant has been paying Mandi tax on agricultural products, Due to which the council is not authorized to levy separate tax on that goods on payment of Mandi Tax. In this regard, the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to present the proof that if Mandi Tax has been paid by you, then present your evidence or proof about it before the court. But the appellant did not present any such evidence or proof before the court that any Mandi Tax has been paid on the agricultural produce raw material imported by the appellant. However, in this regard, the appellant stated that a writ petition has been filed on his behalf in the Hon'ble High Court regarding Mandi Tax and there is a stay order in it. When on one hand the appellant is stating in his appeal petition para 4 that Mandi Tax has been paid on agricultural products by him. On the other hand, the appellant has revealed that a writ petition regarding the same tax is pending in the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the appellant himself is revealing contradictory facts. It is also mentioned here that no firm or trader will do his business in loss, that is, it is natural for the appellant to export his goods by including the said tax amount in the price of goods sold to consumers and determining the price. Thus, the appellant himself is revealing contradictory facts. It is also mentioned here that no firm or trader will do his business in loss, that is, it is natural for the appellant to export his goods by including the said tax amount in the price of goods sold to consumers and determining the price. Thus, it is natural for the pollution tax collected by Municipal Council Bhilwara to be collected from consumers and not directly from the appellant and if the said tax is refunded in favour of the appellant, then if the appellant company has exported/sold its goods by including the tax amount at that time, then it is impossible for the appellant company to refund the tax amount to those consumers or buyers. Apart from this, the most important fact is that the appellant has stated in his appeal memo that the raw material ordered by him is agricultural product and he has to pay Mandi tax on it, whereas the appellant has failed to prove this fact. The appellant himself has not come before the court with clean hands. In this appeal, the appellant is not eligible to get the relief for which this appeal has been presented. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.” 7. Mr. Sachin Saraswat, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellate Authority proceeded on an assumption that chemicals were used by the appellant-firm in course of its business but there was not even an inspection carried out at the premises of the appellant-firm. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner-firm was not liable to pay pollution tax but the same was realized illegally and, therefore, the petitioner-firm is entitled for refund. 8. The appellate Authority held that in the production of clothes certain other materials such as grey-cloth, yarn, fibre, chemicals etc. are also used in the processing. The appellate Authority therefore having regard to the business of the appellant-firm, that is, woollen yarn, carpets and woollen tops held that chemicals must have been used in the processing work and, therefore, in view of the stipulation under paragraph no.3 of the Notification dated 28th November 2001 the appellant-firm was liable to pay the pollution tax. 9. The appellate Authority therefore having regard to the business of the appellant-firm, that is, woollen yarn, carpets and woollen tops held that chemicals must have been used in the processing work and, therefore, in view of the stipulation under paragraph no.3 of the Notification dated 28th November 2001 the appellant-firm was liable to pay the pollution tax. 9. As we have indicated in the beginning and that is apparent also on a glance at the materials on record, that the pleadings by the petitioner-firm is quite scanty and no foundational details have been provided. This is the basic rule of pleadings and that too in a writ proceeding that there must be clear, cogent and sufficient pleadings in support of the relief sought by the petitioner. 10. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are exercised in public interest and not to further a private interest of the grieving party. The writ Court is, therefore, mandated to find out whether there is sufficient foundation laid in the petition; whether the relief sought is barred by limitation or barred by any law and; whether the relief sought is in the public law or private law realm. Quite apparently, the relief sought by the petitioner-firm through a challenge laid to the appellate order dated 21st May 2010 is in private law realm. Notwithstanding that, any action of the statutory authority can be questioned in the writ proceeding but, for that, there must be sufficient foundation laid and materials placed before the Court. 11. In “City And Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.” (2009) 1 SCC 168 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elucidated the exercise of powers by the writ Court as under:- “……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication or writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitaion; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law.” 12. Another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner-firm has questioned the decision of the appellate Authority but the facts recorded in the appellate order dated 21st May 2010 are not challenged by it. The nature of business carried by the petitioner-firm is also not disputed. Even so, no material such as returns filed under different taxing Statutes have also not been brought on record to establish the real nature of business of the petitioner-firm. Therefore, the facts recorded in the appellate order must be held correct and binding on the petitioner-firm. 13. The nature of business carried by the petitioner-firm is also not disputed. Even so, no material such as returns filed under different taxing Statutes have also not been brought on record to establish the real nature of business of the petitioner-firm. Therefore, the facts recorded in the appellate order must be held correct and binding on the petitioner-firm. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 21st May 2010 and, accordingly, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/2011 is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.