ORDER : SUNIL BENIWAL, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction:- (i) the impugned notice dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure-7) and the impugned notice-cum-order dated 13.09.2025 (Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) the respondent Municipal Board, Nathdwara may kindly be restrained from taking any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 11.09.2025 and 13.09.2025. (iii) the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to operate its museum on the ground floor and office on the first floor of its building. (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts, in nutshell, as narrated in the present writ petition, are that the petitioner constructed a four-storied building after obtaining permission from the respondent - Municipal Board, Nathdwara, which was granted on 20.12.2019. As per the said permission, the premises was to be used for residential purposes. After completion of construction, the building was put to residential use, however, the ground floor was used for running a museum. The museum is not operated on a commercial basis and is run on non-profit basis. In the museum, the petitioner has displayed various portraits of Lord Krishna along with other materials depicting the history of Lord Shrinathji. The museum is accessible to all tourists visiting the Nathdwara Temple. 2.1 On 15.05.2025 a notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was asked to submit documents relating the ownership as well as with regard to the permission granted by the Municipal Board, Nathdwara and was also asked to use the building for residential purpose and if the building is found to be used for commercial and other purposes, appropriate legal action would be taken. However, the same was not served upon it and the same came to the knowledge of the petitioner when it was produced in the suit proceedings. Subsequently, a notice dated 12.06.2025 came to be issued by the respondent – Municipal Board, for the same purpose. However, the same was not served upon it and the same came to the knowledge of the petitioner when it was produced in the suit proceedings. Subsequently, a notice dated 12.06.2025 came to be issued by the respondent – Municipal Board, for the same purpose. In response to the said communication, all the documents as desired by the respondent – Board were made available along with communication dated 19.06.2025. The petitioner’s premises were inspected and based on the inspection report, a communication was submitted on 29.08.2025 addressing the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Nathdwara. As per the said communication, one of the allegation as levelled in a complaint was that the construction has been raised on 15 ft wide road. 2.2 Thereafter, another notice came to be issued on 11.09.2025, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is undertaking commercial activity on the ground floor and on account of such unauthorized use, the respondent – Municipal Board is proposing to take action against the petitioner under Section 194(10)(i) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’). 2.3 A reply to the said notice was submitted on 12.09.2025, wherein the allegation that the museum premises was being used for commercial activity was denied. Despite submitting the said reply, the respondent – Municipal Board has passed seizure order on 13.09.2025, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The seizure proceedings have been undertaken by the Municipal Board, Nathdwara while exercising power under Section 194(7)(f) of the Act of 2009. Thereafter, the suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Nathdwara, however, the same was withdrawn. 3. While arguing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions :- (i)- The respondent–Municipal Board has exceeded its jurisdiction in initiating action against the petitioner while exercising power under Section 194 of the Act of 2009. While drawing attention of this Court towards Section 194 of the Act of 2009, it is contended that Section 194 can be invoked only if some construction raised without permission or in excess of the permission. However, the notices or the seizure proceedings, which have been undertaken, cannot be initiated by invoking the power under Section 194 of the Act of 2009, even if the allegation without admitting are taken on face of it, is with regard to the use of ground floor for commercial purposes. However, the notices or the seizure proceedings, which have been undertaken, cannot be initiated by invoking the power under Section 194 of the Act of 2009, even if the allegation without admitting are taken on face of it, is with regard to the use of ground floor for commercial purposes. It was submitted that it is not a case of unauthorized construction or construction beyond the permission or construction without permission itself. (ii)- The petitioner is not using ground floor for commercial purposes. The petitioner is operating a museum and it is a non- profitable venture. In the museum, the petitioner has displayed portraits of Lord Krishna and certain other materials to demonstrate the history of Nathdwara temple & Lord Krishna. (iii)- The petitioner was given a notice on 11.09.2025 and the premises was seized on 13.09.2025. As a matter of fact, the respondent – Board was required to grant reasonable time for submitting a response. It was submitted that though, response was filed on 12.09.2025, a detailed reply could not be filed on account of the fact that petitioner was given only 24 hours to respond. Such hasty action itself shows the malafide intention of the respondents and for this reason, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (iv)- In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Zulfiquar Haider vs. State of U.P. : 2025 INSC 480 to contend that in the case of an order of demolition, at least 15 days’ time must be provided to the owner or occupier to avail appropriate remedy or to make alternate arrangement. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Municipal Board vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.1 At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It was submitted that the petitioner has equally efficacious and alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 194 of the Act of 2009. In view of the said efficacious remedy being available, the present writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same is required to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was submitted that the petitioner has equally efficacious and alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 194 of the Act of 2009. In view of the said efficacious remedy being available, the present writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same is required to be dismissed on this ground alone. 4.2 While responding to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was running commercial activity on the ground floor. It was submitted that the permission was sought for residential purposes and therefore, the premises could not have been put to use for commercial purposes without having conversion in accordance with law. 4.3 The Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has constructed an underground basement which is in violation of the construction plan dated 20.12.2019. 4.4 Based on the above submissions, it was submitted that in the given circumstances the respondent – Board was fully justified in taking action against the petitioner and was also justified in seizure of the premises. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while responding to the argument regarding maintainability of the writ petition submitted that the impugned order has been issued without jurisdiction, therefore, the present writ petition may not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It would be appropriate to first decide the issue regarding the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent – Board with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. 7.1 Before appreciating the issue regarding maintainability, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 194 of the Act of 2009, which has been invoked while passing the impugned order :- “194. Provisions relating to erection of all kinds of buildings. - (1) Within the limits of a Municipality, any person intending, - (a) to erect a new building; or (b) to re-erect or to make a material addition in a building; or (c) to erect or re-erect any projecting portion of a building; or (d) to make or enlarge any kind of well or boring ; or (e) to erect or re-erect any tower or similar structure on a land or building. shall submit an application in the prescribed form to the Municipality along with the documents required under sub-Section (2) before starting the construction. shall submit an application in the prescribed form to the Municipality along with the documents required under sub-Section (2) before starting the construction. Explanation .- The term "material addition" means any changes in existing set backs, coverage, height, land use and parking areas wherever such parking areas are mandatory under the law. (2) (a) The application as mentioned in sub-Section (1) shall be accompanied by the following, namely:- (i) all documents in support of the title over the land or the building, as the case may be, along with a personal affidavit on oath regarding the genuineness of the documents and undisputed title over the land or the building; (ii) a photocopy of the receipt of the prescribed fee deposited with the Municipality; (iii) six copies of the map (showing the details of the proposed work in different colour) and the site plan. The map would particularly show the specification of construction, height of the building, permissible covered area, open spaces, set backs, parking spaces, ventilation etc.; and (iv) any other information or documents required by the Municipality for its satisfaction, from time to time; (b) The maps required under clause (a) shall be signed and authenticated by the qualified architect or engineer registered and approved by the Municipality, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur Development Authority, Chief Town Planner of the State or by any other authority empowered by the State Government for such purpose from time to time. (3)(a) The scrutiny of title papers by the. Municipality should be restricted to ensure that the land or the building as the case may be, does not belong to, the government or any public agency; (b) The applicant should have legal possession of the land or building on the date of application on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant: Provided that the sanction of building plans by the Municipality shall not in any manner amount to creating a title in the favour of the applicant. (4) (a) Municipality may, by bye-laws, provide that the documents required to be submitted under sub-Section (2) may be submitted in electronic form; (b) The Municipality shall decide the application and convey its written orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application. (4) (a) Municipality may, by bye-laws, provide that the documents required to be submitted under sub-Section (2) may be submitted in electronic form; (b) The Municipality shall decide the application and convey its written orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application. The Municipality or any authority or any committee empowered to grant the permission, shall also be competent to grant or to reject or modify the map or to impose other conditions or restrictions, as may be deemed necessary. In cases where the Municipality fails to convey its decision within two months, the applicant may undertake the construction, after giving one month's clear notice to that effect to the Municipality, considering it as a case of deemed permission. However, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant and the architect or engineer to ensure that in all cases of deemed permission, the provisions of the Act, rules and bye- laws are not violated. (5) Where the application submitted under sub-Section (1), pertains to a multi-storied building i.e. a building above height of fifteen meters, or any institutional complex or a commercial complex in an area of more than five hundred square meters, the Municipality shall obtain advice of the Regional Town Planner of the State Government, before granting the permission sought for and shall ensure that proposed plan and construction is not inconsistent with the rules, bye-laws and public convenience. (6) (a) The Municipality shall frame rules and bye-laws under Sections 339 and 340 for uniform applicability regarding the conditions, restrictions, norms, specifications and the manner of processing the application submitted under this Section; (b) Where the application submitted under sub-Section (1) pertains to non-residential building, multi-storied building, complex or construction of basement, the Municipality shall obtain the advice of the town planner of the area before granting permission sought for and shall ensure that proposed plan and construction is not inconsistent with the rules, bye-laws and public convenience. (7) (a) No person shall commence any type of construction without written permission of the Municipality, and the Municipality shall decide his application within the period of two months from the date of receipt of application complete in all respect; (b) If the decision is not conveyed to the applicant within the period of two months, he shall, before commencing the construction, give clear one month's notice to the Municipality asking to take decision on his application within that period; (c) If the Municipality still fails to dispose of the application or to inform the person, of the action which is being taken in the matter, the applicant may commence the construction taking it to be deemed permission of the Municipality, but he shall not violate any provisions of this Act, rules or bye-laws made thereunder; (d) A written permission shall not be required where a person has submitted an application under sub-Section (1) on an area less than 250 square meters the proposal is for construction of an individual single residential unit up to first floor, and the total height of the building is not more than ten meters from the road level, including the thickness of the roof and any other structure. However, this provision shall not be applicable in any walled city area where separate bye-laws are in existence or in any area which has been declared as an heritage area under any law for the time being in force; (e) The Chief Municipal Officer or any other person authorized by him or Chairman of the Committee authorized to exercise the powers to accord permission shall have power of inspection of site or building and to take measurement at any time for the purpose of deciding the application or to ensure that the work is being carried on according to the sanctioned plan. The Chief Municipal Officer shall issue notice to the person violating the sanctioned plan and the conditions imposed therein while erecting or reerecting the building and it shall be lawful for him to ask such person to remove or dismantle such construction or any construction which may be in violation of the sanctioned plan. The Chief Municipal Officer shall issue notice to the person violating the sanctioned plan and the conditions imposed therein while erecting or reerecting the building and it shall be lawful for him to ask such person to remove or dismantle such construction or any construction which may be in violation of the sanctioned plan. It shall also be lawful for the Chief Municipal Officer to direct the person concerned to stop construction where the construction is going on without permission; (f) It shall be lawful for the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf to seize and take in his possession the whole premises of part thereof and to prohibit the use of such premises for a period specified by him in the notice, for enforcing the provisions of this Section. (8) The Municipality shall not decide any such application in which change of present land use is involved and permission for such change is needed under Section 182. The applications mentioned in this clause shall be referred to the State Government or the concerned authority under intimation to the applicant and with the directions to him not to commence the work. (9) (a) After completion of any building having height of more than 15 meters but before its occupancy, the owner of the building, shall submit an application (along with the certificate of safety and verification of other facts by architect / engineer) for issuance of occupancy certificate. The Chief Municipal Officer, after arranging necessary inspection, shall issue such certificate or ask the owner to remove the defects, if any, as may appear to him to be necessary, within the specific period from the date of receipt of such application. He shall also ensure that the applicant has not contravened the sanctioned map. It shall be the responsibility of the owner not to occupy or to allow such building to be occupied without obtaining occupancy certificate; (b) Whoever contravenes the provisions of clause (a) shall, on conviction by a competent Court, be punished with fine which shall not be less than thirty thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and in case of a continuing contravention, with fine of five hundred rupees for each day of contravention, till such contravention continues. (10) (a) if a person commences, continues or completes any kind of erection or re-erection or makes any material alteration in a building or part thereof, or erects or re-erects any projecting portion of a building in respect of which the Municipality is empowered under Section 192 to enforce a removal of the projecting part or restoration to regular line of set back, or engages himself in the construction or enlargement of a well or boring, without submitting an application under sub-Section (1), he shall, on conviction by a competent Court, be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three months or with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both; (b) If a person commences or continues or completes erection or re- erection or makes any material alteration in a building or part thereof in contravention of the sanctioned plan or violating norms, conditions, restrictions imposed upon him, he shall, on conviction by a competent Court, be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than fifteen days but which may extend to forty five days or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both; (c) If any person who has submitted an application under sub- Section (1) and has availed the facility provided under clause (d) of sub-Section (7), contravenes the conditions, restrictions and norms prescribed for such construction shall, on conviction by a competent Court, be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than fifteen days but which may extend to forty five days or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both; (d) If it is found that the map signed and authenticated by the architect or engineer is inconsistent with the provisions of this Section or the rules, bye-laws of orders made under this Act, such architect or engineer shall be blacklisted and his registration shall be cancelled by the Municipality and he shall, on conviction by a competent Court, be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to two months or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, with both in each case; (e) If it is found that any person has submitted fabricated or fake or false documents or has made wrong and false statement or has concealed the material facts in affidavit for obtaining Municipality's permission, he shall be liable to be prosecuted for fabrication, fraud and concealment under the relevant laws. It shall be the responsibility of the Chief Municipal Officer to initiate criminal proceedings against such person or persons including official, if any, of the Municipality involved in the said act, without delay; (f) The officer or authority empowered for the operation of this Section or official keeping record for this purpose shall be personally responsible if the period fixed for disposal of application received under sub-Section (1) and in case of any notice received under clause (b) of sub-Section (4) is wilfully ignored. The person or persons responsible for such ignorance shall, on conviction by a competent Court, be punished with simple imprisonment for one month or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both; (g) An employee of the Municipality, who has been assigned duties for a particular area and made responsible for reporting the matter of violation of the provisions of this Section, shall ensure that such violations are reported properly without delay and the same are entered in the register kept for the purpose and take necessary action to stop unauthorized construction and if it is proved that he wilfully or knowingly ignored to stop such unauthorized construction and to make report, he shall be punished according to the provisions of sub- Section (18) of Section 245; (h) The Municipality shall have power to stop any work commenced without permission, or violating the norms of sanctioned map or without submitting an application; (i) In addition to the prosecution of defaulter, the Municipality shall have power to demolish whole or part of the construction which has come up without permission or violating the permission, or where permission was sought by fraud etc. as mentioned in this Section. (11) No Municipality shall permit construction of dry latrines and if any person constructs or maintains dry latrine within the municipal area the Municipality shall take steps to demolish such latrines. as mentioned in this Section. (11) No Municipality shall permit construction of dry latrines and if any person constructs or maintains dry latrine within the municipal area the Municipality shall take steps to demolish such latrines. (12) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Municipality or the committee empowered by it or an order of the prescribed authority, may file an appeal against such order within thirty days from the date of such order to the State Government or to any other officer authorized by it.” 7.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents could not have proceeded against the petitioner while invoking power under Sections 194(7)(f) and 194(10)(i) of the Act of 2009. While referring to these provisions, it was argued that the said provisions could be invoked mainly in three contingencies i.e. if construction is raised without permission; if construction is raised beyond permission or if construction is raised contrary to such permission. In the present case none of these contingencies exist and therefore, the respondent – Board could not have proceeded against the present petitioner while invoking power under Section 194 of the Act of 2009. 7.3 Learned counsel for the respondent – Board has tried to justify the initiation of such action on account of its commercial use, however, was not able to satisfy this Court by establishing the fact that if the construction is being used for a purpose other than that for which the permission was granted, then in those circumstances as well, the provisions of Section 194 of the Act of 2009 can be invoked. In absence of any such material to establish this fact, this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondent – Board exceeded its jurisdiction while invoking the powers under Section 194 of the Act of 2009 in the present case. In view of the fact that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the present writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. 7.4 It is also to be noted that the respondent – Board has though argued that the petitioner has raised construction of basement without seeking permission, however, the submission was opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7.4 It is also to be noted that the respondent – Board has though argued that the petitioner has raised construction of basement without seeking permission, however, the submission was opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the map attached along with the writ petition clearly indicates that permission was granted for G + 4 floors including the stilt parking. 8. Considering the above stated facts, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition for the reason that firstly, the proceedings initiated under Section 194 of the Act of 2009 are wholly without jurisdiction as it is not a case of the respondent that the petitioner has raised construction in unauthorized manner or in violation of permission or exceeded the permission. The use of premises for non-residential purposes is though denied by learned counsel for the petitioner, yet, even assuming for a moment that the ground floor was put to commercial use, this itself would not entitle the respondent to invoke Section 194 of the Act of 2009. Secondly, the notice was issued on 11.09.2025 and within 48 hours the seizure proceedings have been undertaken. The time given cannot be said to be reasonable and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondent suffers from the vice of malafide and arbitrariness. 9. As a consequence of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned seizure order dated 13.09.2025 is quashed and set-aside. 9.1 This Court has allowed the writ petition precisely on the ground that the impugned order which has been passed invoking Section 194 of the Act of 2009 is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the issue as to whether the premises is being utilized as per the permission granted has not been delved upon. Be that as it may, the petitioner is bound to use the premises in accordance with the permission granted qua the said premises. If the petitioner uses the premises in question for purposes other than for which permission has been granted, the respondent – Board would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.